# Pipes - Blind Review # 4, 5, & 6



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

IHT said:


> and so everyone knows: if you want to do one, go for it. i am not the only one that can do one, i just did them for fun, not a "mod" thing, just an "active member" thing. :tu
> feel free to start "blind review #4, 5, 6, etc".


Ok. I will - p

This works just like blind review # 1, 2 and 3 except that I will be sending out samples of *three* quite different pipe tobaccos. I have personally tried *none* of these three blends, (though you may have) so that the reviews comming from my pallet will be as fresh as the reviews comming from yours.

** You will get enough tobacco for 2-3 bowls full of each of the three blends. These will be marked on the baggies as "Blind Review #4", "Blind Review #5" and "Blind Review #6" (cunning, huh?)

** We will use the same review sheet that Greg provided us, as we have been using for the 3 previous blind reviews. I'll include a copy of this sheet at the end of this post.

** Please Review these in *the order they are marked*. (ie: post your review for Blind Review #4 before starting on Blind Review #5) and I will reveal the name of each blend once that blend has been reviewed by all parties.

** You must *post detailed reviews *in this topic using the form provided at the end of this post.

** Your reviews must *include a guess *of the brand/blend of the blind tobacco samples you smoked.

** *There is no prize*, other than the glory of guessing correctly & the humility of guessing incorrectly. This is for fun ... don't worry about how decerning your pallet is or is not ... It's just a way to rate some different tobaccos without prior knowledge of what other people think.

** This is limited to *5 participants*.

The first *5* *(five)* *active pipe forum members* that post a willingness to be a part of this will be added to the list & a PM sent, requesting your address. An active pipe forum member can be defined as someone who participates in the CS Forum pipe section, with reviews, trades, PIFs, MAWs, pipe related posts, etc. ..... You know who you are.

New pipesters are fine, as long as you meet this "active member criteria".

------------------------------------

*Place & Date:*
*Tobacco:*
*Tobacco Cut*:
*Cut Width:* 
*Cut Length:* 
*Ingredients:*

*Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):*
*Appearance *(tobacco): 
*Condition *(humidity level): 
*Smell*: 
*Packing* (easy to difficult): 
*Lighting *(easy to difficult): 
*Taste*: 
*Room Note/Aroma*: 
*Consistency of taste*: 
*Combustion*: 
*Humidity during smoke*: 
*Tongue irritations*: 
*Throat irritation*: 
*Satisfaction of smoke*: 
*After-taste/Finish*: 
*quality-price rapport*:

*Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):*
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
___I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
___only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

*TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100:* ____

Freeform Thoughts/Impressions:

------------------------------------

Any questions? Did I forget anything? Feel free to post here or PM me.

Remember ... this is to have FUN !! .... so ... well .... do that. 

Doug


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

Can I play?


----------



## smokinmojo (Jan 24, 2005)

Three reviews? That should do me for the year! (said do me:r) Im in. LOL


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

pnutbutrsangwich said:


> Can I play?


Of course 



smokinmojo said:


> Three reviews? That should do me for the year! (said do me:r) Im in. LOL


Yeah, ... this one will last just a little while.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

*The List*

*

1: pnutbutrsangwich
2: smokinmojo
3:
4:
5:

*


----------



## smokehouse (Jan 31, 2007)

Im in


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

smokehouse said:


> Im in


Yes you are.

*

1: pnutbutrsangwich
2: smokinmojo
3: smokehouse
4:
5:

*


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

How about me???


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

CigarGal said:


> How about me???


*you*, huh ????

Well of course  :tu

*

1: pnutbutrsangwich
2: smokinmojo
3: smokehouse
4: CigarGal
5:

*


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

me, me, me - if the fuggin net will allow me to post before i'm the 6th and not 5th.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

IHT said:


> me, me, me - if the fuggin net will allow me to post before i'm the 6th and not 5th.


The blinky eye'd wonder rounds out our list. :tu

*

1: pnutbutrsangwich
2: smokinmojo
3: smokehouse
4: CigarGal
5: IHT

*

PM for address requests comming soon.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

*

1: pnutbutrsangwich
2: smokinmojo
3: smokehouse
4: CigarGal
5: IHT

*

*THIS IS FILLED*

p


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Okay ... got Addresses from all participants. I'm awaiting a shipment of baccy so that I can get this started ... should be here today. 

I'm also awaiting my sample from Blind Review #3, and want to be certain that none of the 'baccy I have picked out is the same as is in that pass.

Once I get them mailed (should be the first of next week if not tomorrow) I will post here letting you all know.

:tu


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Okay .... update.

I had not gotten the Blind review #3 sample that I was expecting over the weekend, so I went ahead & packaged # 4, 5 & 6 and took them to the post office. We're just gunna cross our fingers in hopes that I didn't dupe a blend already in the works for #3.

They are being mailed in bubble envevlopes, first class, so you all should receive them by friday (probably on Wed/thurs)

Happy smoking !
p


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

Perfect! I am home alone this weekend so I can smoke my brains out!


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

monsoon said:


> Okay .... update.
> 
> I had not gotten the Blind review #3 sample that I was expecting over the weekend, so I went ahead & packaged # 4, 5 & 6 and took them to the post office. We're just gunna cross our fingers in hopes that I didn't dupe a blend already in the works for #3.
> 
> ...


Even if it's a dupe, it will still be interesting to get everyone's blind impression p

Thanks for putting this together!


----------



## Infin1ty (May 12, 2007)

Can I call an early spot in the next blind review?


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Infin1ty said:


> Can I call an early spot in the next blind review?


You can call all ya want, but I don't know who might be doing the next one. I'm gunna hold off for a while after this, so you may want to just keep checking here from time to time & try to get in. :tu


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

got mine in the mail today, doug.

he's a high class pipe snob, each baggie has a printed out sticker, even sent 3 tobacco review forms already printed out. p
you must've been bored.

indeed.

no 4 seems to be a nice VA flake.
no 5 smells chocolaty.
no 6 smells like no 5, only in ribbon cut.

they all smell nice, look good. now i gotta find the time to relax with these. maybe i'll start my sherlock holmes books with these.


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

?????? He just mailed them today? That was FAST!


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

i only live a few miles away.


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

Let's hear it for the Post Office! Huzzah huzzah!!


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

IHT said:


> got mine in the mail today, doug.
> 
> he's a high class pipe snob, each baggie has a printed out sticker, even sent 3 tobacco review forms already printed out. p
> *you must've been bored.*
> ...


Inded is right....quite bored  As for the snobery, well ... I'm just anal. :hn

No 5 & 6 smell alike ? .... and "chocolaty" ?? .... hrmmmmmmm ..... Couldn't have anything to do with me eating a Hershey's bar with almonds as I packed these up, could it ? .... hrmmmmmmmm .... cuz, .. well ..... I was. :r


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

CigarGal said:


> Let's hear it for the Post Office! Huzzah huzzah!!


Yeah ... "Huzzah" .... but you know that if I were to have spent the $5 to send it priority, it would have taken 3 days.


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

monsoon said:


> Yeah ... "Huzzah" .... but you know that if I were to have spent the $5 to send it priority, it would have taken 3 days.


Yes, it's not suppose to make sense...


----------



## smokinmojo (Jan 24, 2005)

Got my tobak today. Smells great! Can't wait.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

smokinmojo said:


> Got my tobak today. Smells great! *Can't wait*.


Please don't  ... load it up & lets have a review !!!

Good to see that these are getting there so quickly !


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

none for me today.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

CigarGal said:


> none for me today.


you live on the left coast, that's why. :r 'mojo and I are within driving distance. :tg


----------



## smokinmojo (Jan 24, 2005)

#4
*Place & Date: home/office*
*Tobacco: Reiner Long Golden Flake*
*Tobacco Cut*: flake
*Cut Width:* broken
*Cut Length:* varying
*Ingredients:* Virginia, burley, perique

*Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):*
*Appearance *(tobacco): 4 - dark and light flake, broke apart in baggie
*Condition *(humidity level): 6 - arrived perfect
*Smell*: 6 - raisin, sweet/sour
*Packing* (easy to difficult): 6 - could have used any packing method
*Lighting *(easy to difficult): 6 - false light then light
*Taste*: 6 - rich and sweet/spicy
*Room Note/Aroma*: 6 - light and aromatic
*Consistency of taste*: 6 - mild with a slight nic increase towards the bottom
*Combustion*: 6 - one relight mid way
*Humidity during smoke*: 6 - no problem
*Tongue irritations*: 6 - i cant imagine this blend biting with a normal smoking cadence
*Throat irritation*: 6 - none
*Satisfaction of smoke*: 4 - could have been a little stronger
*After-taste/Finish*: 6 
*quality-price rapport*: 6

*Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):*
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
_7_I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
___only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

*TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100:* 93

Freeform Thoughts/Impressions

I am totally lost on this blend. It seems like it should be obvious what it is. (nope) The aroma of the tobacco is dark and fruity. What i was thinking every bowl, (smoked the whole sample today. No tongue bite) is if you took Rattray's Marlin Flake and made it peppery/spicy (not stronger, this is a smooth mild/medium blend) this would be close. Because of that I was tempted to pick a K&K blended flake. (i wouldn't know which one.)

I decided to go with Reiner LGF because I hadn't had it before and I needed a guess! BTW the first bowl was in a cob that I had some aro's in and I was getting some vanilla. The second bowl was in the forum pipe and I smoke a lot of Mc cheer in it and I was getting hints of citrus. The third bowl was a big ol Danco that I havn't smoked in a while. That seemed to be more of the samples flavor and less ghosting......pick a clean pipe! :tu


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Great review, brother !!


----------



## smokehouse (Jan 31, 2007)

Got mine today...look good...i got the next 4 days off work so I will have a review on #4 soon...


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Blind Review # 4

*Place & Date:* My couch, watching the Colts/Chargers game
*Tobacco:* Blend # 4
*Tobacco Cut:* Long, stringy, broken Flake
*Cut Width:* 1/2" - 1"
*Cut Length:* 6"
*Ingredients:* Red VA & Stuff

*Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):*
*Appearance (tobacco):* 6 - Looks like tobacco
*Condition (humidity level):* 6 - Perfection
*Smell:* 6 - Sweet and smokey
*Packing (easy to difficult):* 6 - Some of the easiest I've had
*Lighting (easy to difficult): *6 - Some of the easiest I've had
*Taste:* 6 - Tangy and smokey - Medium in strength
*Room Note/Aroma:* 6 - Smokey but not foul
*Consistency of taste: *6 - Consistent throughout
*Combustion:* 6 - Burns better than most flake tobaccos
*Humidity during smoke:* 6 - Very little moisture in pipe
*Tongue irritations:* 4 - Will bite - Just need to be careful
*Throat irritation: *6 - None whatsoever
*Satisfaction of smoke:* 6 - Tasty with a nice Nic Kick
*After-taste/Finish: *6 - Little aftertaste at all &#8230; nothing foul
*Quality-price rapport:* 2 - One of the more expensive blends - May be cost-prohibitive to some.

*Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):*
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
_7_I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
___only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

*TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100:* _ *91* _

*Freeform Thoughts/Impressions:*

Rubbed this out and gravity filled my Radice Rind bulldog, tamping down just a bit to get the bits of tobacco away from the rim. Lit the entire surface easily with my Old Boy lighter, took a few easy draws and the charring light kept smoking for quite a while, providing a nice grey/black ash atop the unsmoked tobacco. Went ahead and tamped down the char before the tobacco went out & relit the entire surface. The tobacco provides a very nice amount of smoke and stays lit easily. Is it the tobacco or the pipe? &#8230; I love this pipe.

Tangy and smokey is the best I can do to describe the flavor. Good red VA with a backing of something else&#8230;.something that comes off as much dryer than the VA in the forefront. I'm sipping some sweetened iced tea and it's complementing the tobacco well. I'm happy to have something cool to drink, as the dry counterpart to the VA, I think would get to me had I not.

Gentle tamping with my big-assed brass Mr C tamper keeps this lit & smoking well, without a need or even a thought of a relight. As I near the halfway point, I can sense a good amount of Vitamin N coming through the smoke&#8230;..which is great to me, as I sometimes feel that I want a cigarette if a pipes not giving me what I crave.

I passed a pipe cleaner easily through the Radice, all the way into the bowl & it came out with very little moisture on it at all. Again, is it the tobacco, or is it this pipe? Again &#8230; I love this pipe.

After passing the cleaner, I tamp the tobacco & set the pipe down, as I can't tell squat of a room note while I'm smoking. I decide to stroll around the apartment building a bit & come back to it, so I can fill in the room note section of the review. I walk around the inside of the building & pick out different scents from the apartments within. Grilled onions down the hall &#8230;.. Patchouli mixed with marijuana from around the corner &#8230;.. Clean linen from the laundry room &#8230;.. Coconut mixed with sweat from the workout room & tanning bed. I come back to the apartment & the subtle smokey smell was quite nice, compared to the assault my olfactory, resulting from my jaunt through the building.

I decided to DGT the rest of this bowl, and see how it preformed when I came back to it. Letting the last half of the bowl sit for 10 hours or so, gave the tobacco some added strength, but not at all unpleasantly. Lighting once and tamping through the last half, provided a good clean burn through & through to the last bit of flake left in the bowl.

A very good medium Red Virginia tobacco, with that "smokey something else" in the background, complementing it quite nicely. One of the best tobaccos I have had of any style, when it comes to smoking & staying lit, which surprised me for a flake tobacco.

But, then &#8230;. it could be this pipe.

I love this pipe.

:tu


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

you like that pipe, doug?


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

IHT said:


> you like that pipe, doug?


Ya think ?


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

I wonder....maybe you like that pipe?


Got my samples today and will start in tomorrow-have a date with a hot tub and a stogie in about half an hour.


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

Got em yesterday :tu

I'm going to smoke these over the weekend and get these reviews in quickly. p


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

A litle note on blend #5

First off, it may do you well to dry it out a bit.

Secondly, I don't think anyone has the amount of blend #5 for the stated 2-3 bowls .... I was working on a review for this stuff last night & it just doesn't fluff up like many flake tobaccos I've had. As much as it depleated the tin, it had me wondering if there was even the stated 2 oz in the tin 

Anyhoo .... simply review what ya got, which should be at least a bowl. :tu


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

monsoon said:


> A litle note on blend #5
> 
> it had me wondering if there was even the stated *2 oz* in the tin


a hint.


----------



## smokehouse (Jan 31, 2007)

*Place & Date:* my couch 
*Tobacco:* blend #4
*Tobacco Cut:* broken flake
*Cut Width:* varied	
*Cut Length:* varied
*Ingredients:* Va,Burley,Perique,Stoved Va

*Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):*
*Appearance (tobacco):* 6 - dark and light broken flake
*Condition (humidity level)*: 6 - a little moist but only took 20 min to dry out 
*Smell:* 6 - sweet/nutty
*Packing (easy to difficult):* 6 - no problems packing
*Lighting (easy to difficult):* 6 - no problems lighting
*Taste:* 4- sweet, smokey, a little too spicy for me
*Room Note/Aroma:* 6 - wife didn't complain like she did with the Fillmore 
*Consistency of taste:* 6 - tasted good all the way thru
*Combustion*: 6 - stayed lit all the way thru
*Humidity during smoke:* 6 - none
*Tongue irritations:* 6 - none
*Throat irritation:* 6 - none
*Satisfaction of smoke:* 6 - nice smoke
*After-taste/Finish:* 6 - didn't notice any
*Quality-price rapport:* 6 - didn't cost me nothin

*Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):*
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
___I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
_5_only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

*TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100: _93_*

*Freeform Thoughts/Impressions:*

Good quality tobacco. Can not put my finger on what it is. Smoked great with lots of flavor and stayed light all the way thru. Had a nice sweet nutty smokey flavor when first lit and then the spiciness took over. The second bowl seemed spicier than the first. It was worth trying.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Great review ! .... :tu

3 down - 3 to go for Blend #4


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

Place & Date: Friday 1/18/08 On the back deck-Ambient Temp=42 degrees
Tobacco: #4
Tobacco Cut: long flake
Cut Width: broken-can’t tell
Cut Length: “
Ingredients: Va Burley??

Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):
Appearance (tobacco): 6-nice appearance-long flakes are pretty
Condition (humidity level): 4-may be a little dry after its travels
Smell: 4-mild aroma and not as overpowering as some freshly opened tins that reek of raisins
Packing (easy to difficult): 6-very easy
Lighting (easy to difficult): 6-very easy
Taste: 2-full taste spicy and then nutty-not for me
Room Note/Aroma: 4-smoking outside makes it hard to pin down a room note but this had a pleasant aroma
Consistency of taste: 4-started out spicy and then turned nutty
Combustion: 6 two tamps-had a nice burn
Humidity during smoke: 6- stayed dry with very little gurgle
Tongue irritations: 4- maybe a little bite
Throat irritation: 6-none
Satisfaction of smoke: 2-middle of the road 
After-taste/Finish: 2-short finish
Quality-price rapport: 4-not a bad baccy- just not for me.

Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
___I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
__5_only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100: _71 _

Freeform Thoughts/Impressions: I can't venture a guess because it didn't remind me of anything I have had before. I smoked it in my new Christmas meer and it was a nice cool smoke. The burn was great-best burn I have ever had. No trouble keeping it lit. The flavor just wasn't for me so the score came down a lot because of that.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

sorry i'm taking so long, doug. lots of stuff going on... i need time to sit down and focus on a review. i'll get it done, though.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Nice review, Marianne !!



IHT said:


> sorry i'm taking so long, doug. lots of stuff going on... i need time to sit down and focus on a review. i'll get it done, though.


No sweat, brother....you'll catch up.

Anyone that has reviewed #4 can feel free to delve into #5 & then #6. No need to wait if you don't wanna wait.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

first crack at BR #4

*Place & Date:* garage, cold as hell - 21Jan08
*Tobacco:* BR #4
*Tobacco Cut*: Flake
*Cut Width:* Medium to Thick
*Cut Length:* eh, long enough, like a ready rubbed rattrays, could be how monsoon packed it
*Ingredients:* Red VAs, Stoved VAs, either a hint of burley or perique (smoked in a Va/Per pipe, maybe ghost perique)

*Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):*
*Appearance *(tobacco): 6 - nice red VAs dominate, specks of bright VAs (or burley)
*Condition *(humidity level): 6 - nearly dead on
*Smell*: 4 - not a McClelland product, no ketcup aroma. smells like red and stoved VAs.
*Packing* (easy to difficult): 4 - easy enough, i suppose, after rubbing out
*Lighting *(easy to difficult): 4 - took a few lights.
*Taste*: 4 - it's good, it's got something in there besides the red and stoved VAs, and i'm thinking it's burley. nice and smokey, tangy on initial lighting, and hints of the red VA sweetness.
*Room Note/Aroma*: 6 - it's gotta be good, it's a pipe.
*Consistency of taste*: 6 - progressed as it went, which is good. started off tangy, then a little sweet, then moved to mostly smokey stoved VA with that burley background
*Combustion*: 4 - had to relight a few times more than normal for me
*Humidity during smoke*: 4 - not bad, ran the cleaner through the pipe 2 times
*Tongue irritations*: 4 - i overpuff, wasn't bit, but if a total newb huffer got ahold of it, it may. it did make the tongue tingle... maybe a MacBaren blend???
*Throat irritation*: 6 - none... i don't get this, but some ppl have said they get a scratchy throat from some blends
*Satisfaction of smoke*: 4 - eh, it's good, but not "search and buy this" type of good
*After-taste/Finish*: 2 - still tasting it 15-30 minutes later. not the same as while i was smoking it, more of a burley and dirty note on the finish
*quality-price rapport*: 6 - it was free for my 2 bowl sample (still got a bowl left)

*Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):*
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
___I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
_5_only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

*TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100:* _75??_

Freeform Thoughts/Impressions:
well, i was trying to figure out what this was. it's not _bad_... just not _great_... it didn't smell/taste like a McClelland product, so i ruled those out. couldn't find a Rattrays that fit the description of what i was tasting. couldn't tell if it had perique or not due to using the forum pipe, which is a va/per pipe. 
i'm at a loss, so i'll just toss out a few names as my guesses after the first bowl: Wessex Red VA Flake or Wessex Brigade Campaign Dark Flake or CD Opening Night or CD Red Carpet or Low Country Waccamaw.
just came to the realization that i didn't look at any MacBaren blends while doing the "tongue irritation" portion of the review, will have to check them out next time.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Great review, Greg !! .... and in your garage last night, .. man ... that's one damn cold smoke.

Just so everyone knows, no one has gotten this right. A few have come very close in picking out the componets to this blend. As soon as Tom gets his review in, I'll spill the perverbial beans.


----------



## smokinmojo (Jan 24, 2005)

*Place & Date:* Home
*Tobacco:* BR #5
*Tobacco Cut*: Flake
*Cut Width:* uniform width
*Cut Length:* uniform length
*Ingredients:* Va and other stuff

*Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):*
*Appearance *(tobacco): 6 - Very uniform golden/brown flake
*Condition *(humidity level): 4 - slighty moist
*Smell*: 4 - Kinda funky, musty/nutty
*Packing* (easy to difficult): 6 - Folded nicely
*Lighting *(easy to difficult): 4 - took a few lights
*Taste*: 6 - Sweet, spicy, nutty
*Room Note/Aroma*: 6 - not sure
*Consistency of taste*: 6 - taste the same throughout
*Combustion*: 4 - Had to relight a few times
*Humidity during smoke*: 4 - had a little gurgle, could have been the pipe/cadence combo
*Tongue irritations*: 4 - Very little bite
*Throat irritation*: 6 - I've had throat irritation for days
*Satisfaction of smoke*: 6 - very nice
*After-taste/Finish*: 4 - A little after-taste
*quality-price rapport*: 6

*Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):*
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
_7__I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
__only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

Total score out of 100: 83

I would have reviewed this before now but I've had a head cold and scorched the back of my palate tasting a fresh mixed Va. Im an idiot and didn't take notes and smoked the whole sample in one sitting. So im just saying....

The aroma in the baggy is very musty for a Va. flake. The flake was easy to light but I over packed a bit and the draw was a little forced. The flavor that came through was nutty/allspice. There were moments the flake seemed sweet and spicy.

I really enjoyed this flake and would definately buy a tin. It's a very light ,sweet ,slightly peppery flake. My guess....I have no clue!

How about.... Cornell & Diehl Manhattan Afternoon (wow.. thats not even close)

:tu


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Great review, Craige !!


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

I'll try and get this in tomorrow. Life has not been as expected these last few days...


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Life has a way of throwing curveballs at times. No worries :tu


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

i had thought about this during my lunch break.

while grabbing some sample baggies from my "cellar", and a couple mason jars, i noticed a jar full of 
*Solani 660* sitting there.
i thought, "damn, looks a lot like BR #4." so, i opened the jar, took a sniffer, and it's damn close to BR #4....
can't wait to find out how wrong i am.


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

IHT said:


> i had thought about this during my lunch break.
> 
> while grabbing some sample baggies from my "cellar", and a couple mason jars, i noticed a jar full of
> *Solani 660* sitting there.
> ...


I think those Sherlock Holmes stories are making a better slueth out of you:tu


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

but he's always right. i must be Watson.. INDEED. (which i get a kick out of how many times they say "indeed" in those books)


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

*Blind Review No. 5*

*Place & Date:* Being a couch potato - 01-17-08
*Tobacco:* Blind Review tobacco #5
*Tobacco Cut:* Sliced Flake
*Cut Width:* 1"
*Cut Length:* 2"
*Ingredients:* Golden Virginia &#8230;. and stuff

*Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):*
*Appearance (tobacco):* 6 - Light golden VA flake
*Condition (humidity level):* 4 - Well on the wet side
*Smell:* 6 - Nutty, bread-like, chocolaty
*Packing (easy to difficult): *4 - Rubbed it, gravity fed, not as packed as I like
*Lighting (easy to difficult): *6 - Lit well enough
*Taste:* 4 - Good, sweet golden VA, but very one-dimensional
*Room Note/Aroma:* 6 - Like fresh baked bread
*Consistency of taste: *4 - became more bland as it smoked
*Combustion:* 4 - Burns fast and hot &#8230; or maybe that was just my puffin'
*Humidity during smoke: *2 - Much moisture in the pipe
*Tongue irritations:* 4 - Will bite if you allow it to
*Throat irritation:* 6 - None
*Satisfaction of smoke: *4 - Good flavor, but one-dimensional, with very little nicotine
*After-taste/Finish:* 6 - Sweet aftertaste &#8230; stays with you for a while
*Quality-price rapport:* 4 - Smokes too fast to give it anything higher

*Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):*
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
___I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
_5_only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

*TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100:* _*75*_

*Freeform Thoughts/Impressions:*

Rubbed out & gravity fed my Tsuge Arashi # 944. I think my biggest gripe with this blend is how poorly it breaks up. There just isn't the substance to the flake that other tobaccos I am used to have. Where I thought I was loading a bowl full, I ended up with only half a bowl. The Tsuge does have a nice sized bowl, however, so maybe this helped in the illusion that I wasn't getting out of the tin, what I thought I should be.

As all golden VA tobacco, I get the taste & aroma of fresh baked breads. Lots of smoke &#8230;. sweet and doughy &#8230;. a little nutty or grainy. I like the taste of olden VA & this is sweeter than others I've tried. Good stuff. Lots of smoke.

Seems to burn quite hot, however, and very, very fast. I found myself (after a couple of relights) to the end of the bowl very quickly. The fast burning probably caused the more-than-I-like moisture in the pipe as well. Don't think I'll be looking to toss money this way, when there are far better burning golden VA's out there.


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

Tomorrow... I swear. I haven't had a minute to smoke in a few days now. Life's been crazy.


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

Tobacco # 4 Review


Place & Date: My couch, watching South Park
Tobacco: Blend # 4
Tobacco Cut: Long, stringy, broken Flake
Cut Width: skinny
Cut Length: long
Ingredients: damned if I know

Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):
Appearance (tobacco): 6 – 
Condition (humidity level): 6 - A little wet, but otherwise fine
Smell: 6 – has a sort of maple syrup note to it
Packing (easy to difficult): 4 – wetness doesn't help
Lighting (easy to difficult): 6 – wetness doesn't matter
Taste: 6 – Sweet and Spicy mmmmmm
Room Note/Aroma: 6 – nice... Viriginias shine
Consistency of taste: 6 – develops nicely but doesn't lose anything good
Combustion: 6 – burns well
Humidity during smoke: 6 
Tongue irritations: 4 – smoke it slow!
Throat irritation: 6 – idk about this one
Satisfaction of smoke: 6 – very nice, strong nicotine
After-taste/Finish: 4 – not super, not offensive
Quality-price rapport: 6 - free to me!


Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
_7_I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
___only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100: _ 91 _

Freeform Thoughts/Impressions:

Grabbed a trusty cob as the letter dictated (or so I interpretted) and settled down for a smoke. It was somewhat difficult to rub out as the tobacco was still a little wet. However, I packed about 3/4 of a bowl and did the whole char light routine. Immediately I was hit with a somewhat sour note that had some woody strength and reminded me of a Dominican cigar. Behind it was a very sugary sweetness. It was like plain white sugar bowl sugar. Smoking down a little bit more, the "cigar" not changed to a taste that I associate with orientals. The sweetness also settled into that classic bright Virgina taste. Once the bowl heated up, there was an ever so mild bite that let me know there were more Viriginas in there than I tasted. However, down the the end it remained similar to this for me.

If I had to guess what it was, I would say it was some English/Oriental mixture, but since it's a long cut flake, I'm at a loss to specifically identify it.


----------



## smokehouse (Jan 31, 2007)

*Blind Review No. 5*

*Place & Date:* on my couch 
*Tobacco:* Blind Review tobacco #5
*Tobacco Cut:* Sliced Flake
*Cut Width:* Flake
*Cut Length:* Flake
*Ingredients:* VA

*Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):*
*Appearance (tobacco):* 6 - Light and dark brown VA flake
*Condition (humidity level):* 6 - Wet, but I like it that way
*Smell:* 6 - Nutty, raisiny, caramel notes
*Packing (easy to difficult): *6- no problems
*Lighting (easy to difficult): *4 - took a little to get going, had to relight once or twice
*Taste:* 4 - Va taste, nutty, tangy, roasted nuts
*Room Note/Aroma:* 6 - smelled good to me and got no complaints
*Consistency of taste: *4 - was pretty mild to begin with, didn't notice much change
*Combustion:* 4 - burns hot 
*Humidity during smoke: *4 - had some moisture in the bottom
*Tongue irritations:* 6 - none
*Throat irritation:* 6 - None
*Satisfaction of smoke:* 6 - nice smoke I enjoyed it
*After-taste/Finish:* 6 - 
*Quality-price rapport:* 6 - its worth buying a tin

*Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):*
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
_7_I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
___only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

*TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100:* *_87_*

*Freeform Thoughts/Impressions:*

Had a nice mild nutty Va taste. First bowl I smoked a little too fast and it smoked hot and the flavor seem to fade. Second bowl I toned it down a little and the flavor profile and hotness seemed to fade. Needed to be aired out for a while before it was smokeable, which I don't mind. The only thing I have smoked that came close to this is SG Best Brown Flake. Its been awhile since I have had that, so I can't say for sure.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Great reviews, gentlemen ...

Don't worry about the cob, tom, unless you want to. The reason I put that in there, was that one of these blends does have a casing and people get particular about that.

Everyone has reviewed blend # 4 and, although no one was dead on, Greg may have well been. He guessed Solani 660 and the 660 is almost identical to the correct blend of ...

*Blend #4 - Solani Silver Flake*

Thanks for the effort in getting these in ... keep 'em going as you find the time.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

monsoon said:


> Everyone has reviewed blend # 4 and, although no one was dead on, Greg may have well been. He guessed Solani 660 and the 660 is almost identical to the correct blend of ...
> 
> *Blend #4 - Solani Silver Flake*
> 
> Thanks for the effort in getting these in ... keep 'em going as you find the time.


um.... doug....

660 *IS* Silver Flake.

what do i win?


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

IHT said:


> um.... doug....
> 
> 660 *IS* Silver Flake.
> 
> what do i win?


Hey look .... silly Greg ... 660 *IS* Silver flake !!

(oops...my bad)

What do you win ? .... a little formaldehyde for those crows feet around your blinky eyes? .... a lifetime subscription to the Hair Club of America? .... the Camacho cigar leaf I added to your samples? .... I have a whole list here .. I can keep going


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

Place & Date: On the couch, watching Family Guy p
Tobacco:#5
Tobacco Cut: Flake
Cut Width: not as skinny as #4 
Cut Length: not as long as #4
Ingredients: Still no clue

Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):
Appearance (tobacco): 6 - Looks like tobacco!
Condition (humidity level): 6 - perhaps a little too moist
Smell: 2 - Hard to describe, messy
Packing (easy to difficult): 4 - Perhaps my fault, but tough to pack due to moisture
Lighting (easy to difficult): 2 - (see above)
Taste: 6 - Smokey (latakia?), sweet, spicy
Room Note/Aroma: 6 - very pleasant
Consistency of taste: 6 - taste the same throughout
Combustion: 4 - Had to relight a few times
Humidity during smoke: 4 - see above
Tongue irritations: 6 - Not bad
Throat irritation: 6 - none
Satisfaction of smoke: 5 - can I give it a 5?
After-taste/Finish: 4 - A little after-taste
quality-price rapport: 6 - division by zero?

Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
____I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
_5_only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)


Total score out of 100: 76 (wow that sounds low) 

I don't know if my palate was off or what, but smoking this gave me no clear indication of what was in it, let alone what blend it is. The opening is very much like an English to me with the tanginess of latakia being very, very lightly present to me. On top of that, there was the sweetness of Virginias and a mild spiciness (like heat from a pepper). It was pretty good, but too hard to keep lit (probably my fault for not drying it out). I didn't like it very much, but it was alright.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

my samples aer at work, so i couldn't review this weekend. i'll try to get the remaining two done by the end of the week.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

pnutbutrsangwich said:


> The opening is very much like an English to me with the tanginess of latakia being very, very lightly present to me.


Would the pipe you used have some ghosting from some previously smoked english blends ?


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

monsoon said:


> Would the pipe you used have some ghosting from some previously smoked english blends ?


:hn Probably... it wasn't present enough for me to say that it was really in there, but now that I think of it I was probably the victim of a haunting!


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

Smoked some more of #5 in a clean pipe last night. The hint of latakia was not present in any way. The Virginias came through more prominently, but there was a stronger nuttiness to the spice (which previously had been more hot peppery). Very nice taste to the Virginias, which I don't usually smoke since I fear tongue bite. This one bit a little, but wasn't too bad. If I had to guess, I'd say this is some kind of Virginia/Burley blend... and I liked it a lot p


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

*Blind Review - Blend #6*

*Place & Date:* My apartment - Watching that new cheesy TV "Terminator" show
*Tobacco:* Blend #6
*Tobacco Cut:* Ribbon cut
*Cut Width:* Varied
*Cut Length:* Varied
*Ingredients:* Virginia & stuff 

*Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):*
*Appearance (tobacco):* 6 - Dark, Red & rich looking
*Condition (humidity level):* 6 - Nice and springy
*Smell:* 6 - Tangy red VA
*Packing (easy to difficult):* 6 - (It's ribbon .. how hard can it be?)
*Lighting (easy to difficult): *6 - Lit without issue
*Taste:* 6 - Sweet & Sour (in a good way) - Tangy - Peppery - Quite rich
*Room Note/Aroma:* 6 - Not unpleasant
*Consistency of taste:* 4 -Transitional - more pepper as it burns
*Combustion:* 6 - Burns well - Loads of smoke
*Humidity during smoke:* 2 - My Radice Rind gave it's first & only gurgle with this blend
*Tongue irritations:* 6 - None
*Throat irritation:* 6 - None
*Satisfaction of smoke:* 6 - Rich & full. Loads of smoke. Good Nic punch.
*After-taste/Finish: *6 - Tangy & smoky. Not unpleasant.
*quality-price rapport:* 6 - Lots of smoking in a tin, at a good price point.

*Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):*
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
_*7*_I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
___only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

*TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100:* _*91*_

*Freeform Thoughts/Impressions:*

This stuff's damn good. A real no brainer, when it comes to packing/lighting/smoking and with a great flavor to boot, that builds as it burns. The taste of pepper starts out very faint & in the background and builds to become the forefront of the tobacco as you reach the end of the bowl.

I gave it 7 points on the "Impressionistic Evaluation," but I wonder if it should score a 10, once it's been aged more. This may very well be one of my top few of it's kind.

I tried a little DGT with this blend last week, & it's not one to do that with. The pepper became very harsh and ashy&#8230;. give yourself 45min to an hour, and smoke a full bowl, however, and this 'baccy really pleases.

:tu


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

pnutbutrsangwich said:


> Smoked some more of #5 in a clean pipe last night. The hint of latakia was not present in any way. The Virginias came through more prominently, but there was a stronger nuttiness to the spice (which previously had been more hot peppery). Very nice taste to the Virginias, which I don't usually smoke since I fear tongue bite. This one bit a little, but wasn't too bad. If I had to guess, I'd say this is some kind of Virginia/Burley blend... and I liked it a lot p


Good to see you had enough in that little sample to get a true taste of it :tu


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

I still have more yet! It was a small pipe p

BTW, that Terminator show is really not too bad. :tu


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

pnutbutrsangwich said:


> I still have more yet! It was a small pipe p
> 
> BTW, *that Terminator show is really not too bad*. :tu


Naw .... I agree .. it's really alright. But I really like cheese


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

i smoked a cob of BR #5 yesterday afternoon...
um... i didn't have my sheet as i was driving, so i'll go off memory.

Tobacco:#5
Tobacco Cut: Flake
Cut Width: average flake 
Cut Length: average for a flake
Ingredients: VA, burley, maybe a topping

Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):
Appearance (tobacco): 6 - looks good
Condition (humidity level): 6 - felt good, a tiny bit too moist
Smell: 2 - umm.... nah, not my bag.
Packing (easy to difficult): 4 - rubbed out easily, packed easy enough
Lighting (easy to difficult): 2 - took about 5 charring lights and lights.
Taste: 0 - nasty, it bit, no real flavors other than harshness
Room Note/Aroma: 2 - it's better than a latakia blend (so is cowshit)
Consistency of taste: 0 - well, do i want it to continue to suck?
Combustion: 4 - it burned after a handful of lighting attempts
Humidity during smoke: 2 - pretty humid, had to run a pipe cleaner thru once at the mid-point.
Tongue irritations: 2 - bit like a muther trucker to start off. the entire smoke it was irritating.
Throat irritation: 6 - never had this issue before
Satisfaction of smoke: 0 - not satisfied at all, but will still try the remaining sample
After-taste/Finish: 0 - crap
quality-price rapport: 0 - you can't force me to pay for this crap

Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
___I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
___only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
_0_one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

Total score out of 100: *36*

Freeform Thoughts: 
i can't find anything good to say about this other than it looked good.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

lol ... so, Greg .... how do you *really feel about it? :r


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

Do I really want to smoke #5 after reading Greg's review?? lol!

Snowing to beat the band today so I have to stick around home. I think I will bundle up and go out on the deck and try this one today.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

CigarGal said:


> Do I really want to smoke #5 after reading Greg's review?? lol!
> 
> Snowing to beat the band today so I have to stick around home. I think I will bundle up and go out on the deck and try this one today.


Smoke away  .... Someone out there thinks this stuff's the absolute bee's knees. Then again, someone out there likes pickled pig snouts too.

Snowing here too. Went from like 58F this morning to 19F four hours later. (ugh) ... supposed to get 60mph winds as well.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

monsoon said:


> lol ... so, Greg .... how do you *really feel about it? :r


i'd give it a 36, dick, i can't dance to it.
:chk


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

IHT said:


> i'd give it a 36, dick, i can't dance to it.
> :chk


btw: This is a 4-star 'baccy on tobaccoreviews. Just shows how much tastes & experience with many blends differ. My favorite of the 3 blind tobaccos is also the lowest rated on that site.


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

Place & Date: 1-29-08 Back deck 3pm Ambient temp-33 F
Tobacco: #5
Tobacco Cut: ribbon
Cut Width: ½ in
Cut Length: 5 in
Ingredients:beats me 

Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):
Appearance (tobacco): 4-dark brown with little bits of beige
Condition (humidity level): 4 very moist from bag-let dry for 30 min.
Smell: 2-mild, almost non-existent
Packing (easy to difficult): 6-folded a slice then crumbled some on top.
Lighting (easy to difficult): 6-lit right up
Taste: 0-bland-kept witing for something to “kick” in. Absolutely no spice.
Room Note/Aroma: 2-none to write home about
Consistency of taste: 4-consistently bland
Combustion: 4-started right up but developed a gurgle 1/3 in and didn’t wait around for burn problems
Humidity during smoke: only 1/3 into the bowl it was getting moist.
Tongue irritations: 2 started to bite right about the time the gurgle started
Throat irritation: 2 irritation from the get go
Satisfaction of smoke: 0-I got no satisfaction
After-taste/Finish: 0-nada
Quality-price rapport: 2-not sure what this means but I am going to give this a smidge of quality.

Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
___I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
___only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
_3__I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100: _43 _

Freeform Thoughts/Impressions: Not for me, for sure. I didn’t enjoy smoking this one. The flavor just wasn’t there…and what was there was not pleasant-bite and irritation. Maybe this one needs some age???


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

monsoon said:


> btw: This is a 4-star 'baccy on tobaccoreviews.


another clue, watson.
indeed!


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

And thus ends the Blind review #5

Craige (smokinmojo) got this one in the first review.

It's .....* C&D Manhattan Afternoon*

Nice reviews, all....:tu....on to #6 at your leisure.


----------



## smokehouse (Jan 31, 2007)

*Blind Review - Blend #6*

*Place & Date:* My couch and My office at work
*Tobacco:* Blend #6
*Tobacco Cut:* Ribbon cut
*Cut Width:* -
*Cut Length:* -
*Ingredients:* Virginia, Burley, Perique,?????

*Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):*
*Appearance (tobacco):* 6 - Light,medium and Dark Brown ribbons
*Condition (humidity level):* 6 - needed no drying
*Smell:* 2 - slight raisiny smell, musty, woody
*Packing (easy to difficult):* 6 - no prob
*Lighting (easy to difficult): *6 - no prob
*Taste:* 2 - sourish woody with slight peppery taste going to full peppery taste 
*Room Note/Aroma:* 6 - had a nice note
*Consistency of taste:* 2 - got real peppery as it got hotter
*Combustion:* 6 - no prob
*Humidity during smoke:* 4 - had a little gurgle
*Tongue irritations:* 6 - None
*Throat irritation:* 6 - None
*Satisfaction of smoke:* 0 - didn't care for it 
*After-taste/Finish:* 2 - slight bitterness after taste
*quality-price rapport:* 0 - wouldn't buy it

*Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):*
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
_*_*_I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
___only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
*_3**_*I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

*TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100:* *_63_*

*Freeform Thoughts/Impressions:*

I didn't really care for it, but I could see someone might like it.


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

monsoon said:


> And thus ends the Blind review #5
> 
> Craige (smokinmojo) got this one in the first review.
> 
> ...


4 stars with only 4 reviews-not exactly a stampede. Here is what the last one on the page said:

At this time, the tobacco is young but, with a couple of years aging, it shall get better and sweeter. There are similarities between Manhattan Afternoon (MA), SG's Best Brown Flake, SG's FVF, McClelland's Organically Grown Flake, and McClelland's Christmas Cheer. The latter four, in my opinion, are the gold standard for virginias. However, MA is a little anemic now and needs some age. Given that the virginias are all golden, this should be like smoking candy in 2009 and 2010. Nice hay-like smell. I'm excited!

I think it needs a lot of age...


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

CigarGal said:


> I think it needs a lot of age...


:tpd:I agree. But I'm not jumping on the bandwagon to age this stuff myself. I think there are much better golden VA's out there ... MacBaren VA#1 for one .... Reiner's golden flake for another. ... Orlick as well.

Personal tastes, of course.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

CigarGal said:


> 4 stars with only 4 reviews-not exactly a stampede. Here is what the last one on the page said:
> 
> At this time, the tobacco is young but, with a couple of years aging, it shall get better and sweeter. There are similarities between Manhattan Afternoon (MA), SG's Best Brown Flake, SG's FVF, McClelland's Organically Grown Flake, and McClelland's Christmas Cheer. The latter four, in my opinion, are the gold standard for virginias. However, MA is a little anemic now and needs some age. Given that the virginias are all golden, this should be like smoking candy in 2009 and 2010. Nice hay-like smell. I'm excited!


then factor in who wrote the review and see if they like the same things you like.

it's only a VA?? wow.
i like golden VAs as well, but damn, that SUCKED. bit, no VA flavor (actually no flavor, other than smokey, which i normally think is a burley type flavor).
eh... we'll see in a few years.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

IHT said:


> then factor in who wrote the review and see if they like the same things you like.
> 
> *it's only a VA?? *wow.
> i like golden VAs as well, but damn, that SUCKED. bit, no VA flavor (actually no flavor, other than smokey, which i normally think is a burley type flavor).
> eh... we'll see in a few years.


Golden VA & a "light honey" topping, from the description.


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

I thought it was more burley than VA myself...maybe the honey messed it up. I like the flavor of the VaPers I've been trying but this was the first VA I've had...I will try not let it color my judgement.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Anyone else get a chance to look into review #6 yet ?

Just keeping the thread in the hearts and minds of our reviewers p


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

It's on my mind...hope to get to it today.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

monsoon said:


> Anyone else get a chance to look into review #6 yet ?
> 
> Just keeping the thread in the hearts and minds of our reviewers p


thanks for the reminder, my samples are at work, and i'll try to grab some on the way back home tonight.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

CigarGal said:


> It's on my mind...hope to get to it today.





IHT said:


> thanks for the reminder, my samples are at work, and i'll try to grab some on the way back home tonight.


WOOT!! :tu No rush, folks ... just a gentle nudge. I think you'll like this one quite a bit, Greg ... hint hint ... it's right down your alley.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

BR#6 
maybe my corn cob is fouled up, cuz i couldn't grasp what flavors these were.
zip=loc aroma wasn't giving hints of good things to come, and it didnt' taste like it smells, which was good...
will have to give it another twirl in a briar.


----------



## smokinmojo (Jan 24, 2005)

*Blind Review - Blend #6*

*Place & Date: *Home, sometime last week....whoopsy
*Tobacco:* Blend #6
*Tobacco Cut:* Ribbon cut
*Cut Width:* Varied
*Cut Length:* Varied
*Ingredients:* Virginia & stuff

*Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):*
*Appearance (tobacco):* 6 - reds and shades of brown
*Condition (humidity level):* 4 - just on the dry side
*Smell:* 6 - sweet and sour with hints of cocoa...nice
*Packing (easy to difficult):* 6 - any method would have worked
*Lighting (easy to difficult): *6 - like a christmas tree
*Taste:* 2 - peppery and ashey
*Room Note/Aroma:* 4 - not the best, but was ok
*Consistency of taste:* 4 - unfortunately
*Combustion:* 6 - Burns well 
*Humidity during smoke:* 2 
*Tongue irritations:* 4 - just a little bite
*Throat irritation:* 6 - None
*Satisfaction of smoke:* 4 - lots of nic, not much on taste
*After-taste/Finish: *6 
*quality-price rapport:* 6

*Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):*
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
__I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
_5__only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

*TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100:* _*77*_

*Freeform Thoughts/Impressions:

*Here goes review for BR#6. First let me say that this has been a great experience doing these reviews.(thanks Doug!)

I was hoping to enjoy the third blend. The smell in the baggie was delightful. The problem probably was that i enjoyed the aroma so much, i decided to smoke it side by side with Two Friends Redwood. (my favorite ribbon va/per and stuff blend)

I sat at the dining table smoking BR#6 as if taking a test. Not really getting into it. I did get some of the sweet and sour, but I also got a little too much ash taste.

The nic content seemed to amplify towards the bottom of the bowl...which worked for me.

The bottom line for me was, I was happy to finish the bowl and get back to the couch and bowl of Redwood.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

smokinmojo said:


> (thanks Doug!)


My pleasure. Thank *you* for doing these ... this was a lot of fun to put together & give a read. Thanks for that opertunity!


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

Place & Date: Feb. 2, 2008-back deck-AT 41 degrees
Tobacco: #6
Tobacco Cut: ribbon
Cut Width: 
Cut Length: 
Ingredients: tobacco

Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):
Appearance (tobacco): 6-nice looking-more blonde than the others
Condition (humidity level): 4 seemed a little dry coming out of the baggie.
Smell: 6 faint aroma-not heavy into the fruit-what I like
Packing (easy to difficult): 4-a little dry on the packing
Lighting (easy to difficult): 4 -likewise
Taste: 6-started out mild with a nice nutty taste-picked up some spice along the way
Room Note/Aroma: 6-nice-I liked the aroma
Consistency of taste: 6-good taste throughout
Combustion: 6-good-one relight and burned the whole bowl
Humidity during smoke: 4 a little wet towards the end
Tongue irritations: 4-a hint
Throat irritation: 6-none
Satisfaction of smoke: 6- all around good experience
After-taste/Finish: 4-a little short, but pleasant 
Quality-price rapport: tough to say-quality seems good-but I don’t know the price

Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
__7_I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
___only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
___I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100: _ 85 _

Freeform Thoughts/Impressions: nice enjoyable smoke-best of the three. I liked the taste left in my mouth afterwards. As far as a guess??? Reminds me of Squadron Leader so it might be more of an English blend-probably far off on that since I have the palate of a chimp when it comes to tobaccos.


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

CigarGal said:


> nice enjoyable smoke-best of the three.


I would have agreed with that last week ... but I seem to keep grabbing at the Solani 660 as of late, so I call it a toss up for me ... or maybe I'm just being fickle. As for the dryness, the stuff is perfect out of the tin - not too dry & not too wet (does burn a little wet though). I think the long rest in the baggies may have dried the stuff a little & did some funny things to the taste/burn.

Great review !! ... Thanks for taking part in them, Marianne! These have been a joy for me to read through.


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

It has been fun to see how everyone views a particular smoke. Who is setting up the next one???


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

CigarGal said:


> It has been fun to see how everyone views a particular smoke. Who is setting up the next one???












:tu


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

I will get this up soon... I promise p


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

How long should I leave this up untill I spill the perverbial beans on what blend #6 was ?? .... or in other words ... how badly has your sample dried out ?

Tell ya what ... we'll do this ....

CigarGal has been so kind to start another round of blind samplers, so I guess that as soon as she ships those out, I will call an end to this thread & expose blend 6 for what it was.


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

Doh! I forgot to post this. Thanks for the reminder bump.

Place & Date: Feb. 9, 2008 - in the car
Tobacco: #6
Tobacco Cut: ribbon
Cut Width: average
Cut Length: shortish
Ingredients: brown stuff

Evaluated Aspects scale of 0-6 (by twos - 0-2-4-6):
Appearance (tobacco): 6- nice melange of goldish to brownish colors in there
Condition (humidity level): 6 seemed just fine to me
Smell: 4 really not much there
Packing (easy to difficult): 6 nice n easy
Lighting (easy to difficult): 6 see above
Taste: 4 - well, it did have a taste
Room Note/Aroma: 4 also mild to me... and i was in the car
Consistency of taste: 6 taste was consistent FWIW
Combustion: 6 - it did burn
Humidity during smoke: 2 i got a nasty gurgle
Tongue irritations: 4 irritated mildly
Throat irritation: 6 never happens to me
Satisfaction of smoke: 4 - generously
After-taste/Finish: 4 short, but thin
Quality-price rapport: 6 - free for me!

Impressionistic Evaluation (choose one):
___this is one of the best of this genre.... (10 pts)
___I wouldn't mind paying for it... (7 pts)
___only if someone gave me a tin, etc (5 pts)
_3__I don't like it, but can understand other may (3 pts)
___one of the worst tobaccos I've ever smoked (0 pts)

TOTAL SCORE OUT OF 100: _ 77 _

Freeform Thoughts/Impressions: I was generally unimpressed. It started out mildly spicy and leathery, but soon just got messy. I had a hard time identifying what was in it and picking out the specific flavors. I thought that maybe smoking while driving was the problem so I had another bow the next day and it just didn't seem to "click" then either. I imagine that this profile is desirable for some, but I had a hard time being interested in it for some reason.

Thanks to monsoon for setting this up and for being patient with my incredibly slow ass. :hn


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

pnutbutrsangwich said:


> Thanks to monsoon for setting this up and for being patient with my incredibly slow ass. :hn


Thank you, brother, for participating !!!!

I'm really surprised at how blend 6 is turning out from all reviewers !


----------



## CigarGal (Jun 2, 2006)

So we have heard from everyone except Mr. Blinky? Can't wait to kick this one around in the open.


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

p

Wonder what #6 is?


----------



## Don Fernando (Jan 1, 2000)

Okay .. okay ... CigarGal is getting stuff shipped for the next blind review and I said I'd call this & let ya know what #6 was when she did so.

Soooooo......

Blind Review #6 was actually ... *Two Friends Redwood*

This is a great blend (imo) that I think really suffered from being last on the list & as such, allowed time to dry out some.

Anyhoo ... Thanks everyone for doing this. I had a blast with it !! :tu


----------



## smokinmojo (Jan 24, 2005)

monsoon said:


> Okay .. okay ... CigarGal is getting stuff shipped for the next blind review and I said I'd call this & let ya know what #6 was when she did so.
> 
> Soooooo......
> 
> ...


Ahem..... You guys may have noticed that I did a side by side comparison between this and *TFR* ......:r:BS

Who knows..... the pouch aroma, flavor and aroma were all different.

It could have been the sample, or age of my blend, or smoking in different pipes.....or a combination of all three.

Apparently i like my Redwood in the can for a long time....(rimshot)

Had a great time doing these reviews.


----------

